get_today_completed_tasksRetrieve today's completed tasks from OmniFocus to review accomplishments and track daily progress.
Get tasks completed today - view today's accomplishments
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of tasks to return (default: 20) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| meta | No | ||
| tool | Yes | ||
| success | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries less burden. However, the description adds only the mild framing 'view today's accomplishments' and does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as response format, pagination, or sorting. It adds minimal value beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action. The second clause 'view today's accomplishments' is slightly redundant with the first, but overall the description is efficient and avoids unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema (per context signals), the description is minimally adequate. It clearly states the purpose, and the annotations cover the read-only nature. However, it lacks usage context or clarification on how it differs from other task-list requests, leaving the agent to infer when to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the single parameter 'limit' with a description at 100% coverage. The tool description does not mention the limit parameter, so it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'tasks completed today', making the purpose unambiguous. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings by name and scope (completed today), though it does not explicitly contrast with other task-listing tools like get_inbox_tasks or get_forecast_tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does but gives no context about when an agent should prefer it over other task-list tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.